Con Man (2003) User Reviews

Hogue admitted he had an identity problem so why not just leave him alone?

[Ed-Shullivan · 6/10 · 26 March 2015]

The film producers did an adequate job of outlining the number of frauds that James Hogue committed. I wouldn't call them atrocities of injustice as there were and still are literally thousands of college students who I assume may have committed more serious crimes against high schools and top ranked colleges that were not dismissed but allowed to complete their college degrees, nor did any jail time. Can anyone relate to unproven rape cases on almost all college campuses? Similarly there have been literally thousands of high school teachers, college professors and college coaches that have committed crimes without having been sentenced to prison time for their crimes.

Penn State's football coach Jerry Sandusky's sexual misconduct against young boys comes first to mind. How was he allowed to fool the entire football coaching staff and the esteemed Head Coach Joe Paterno for decades without a hint of misconduct? I digress but I do have a point to make. James Hogue only crime was that he fooled people in to believing he was someone (much younger) than who he actually was and entered a high school and a Grade 1 College, Princeton University under an alias with the intent to further his education and acquire a degree from one of the most sought after universities in the United States, Princeton. When the producer did eventually catch up to where James Hogue is they found him living and working in Colorado under his real birth name. The reason he gave for his using fraudulent names was he simply wanted to further his education. I would bet that if the real James Hogue came from an established wealthy family background (even if he were from a foreign country which he was not, he was born in Kansas City) his deceit would have been handled with much more diplomacy and a lot less publicity.

After the documentary was released in 2003, Hogue remained out of the public eye until 2007, when he was convicted of stealing (again) over 7,000 items worth over $100,000.00. He was released from jail in 2012. I wish that one of the many fortune 500 companies would step forward and pay for James Hogue continued education to see if he can be redeemed from his criminal past. All who know him say he was quite brilliant and more than capable of achieving his degree in his chosen field of engineering and mining.

James Hogue is 55 as of March 2015, and I would love to see a documentary sequel titled the Redemption of a Con Man. Stay tuned I give this documentary a 6 out of 10 and it is worth watching.

Intriguing look into the life of a brilliant tortured man

[teziomek · 10/10 · 5 December 2007]

When this film began, I wanted to know more about the subject. In the end I was disappointed with him. The film was great, and shot in a very subjective manor. I recommend this for all psychology majors, and anyone who has any interest in the topic. The movement from one lifestyle to the next, and the way that his peers described him is no doubt deceitful. Everyone who watches this will see that this man had everyone fooled. I wonder why he has been dealt with so harshly in this justice system. Who did he actually hurt by doing this? Why was it so necessary to try and condemn a man with such potential? This is a story of someone that could have been, should have been, but in the end became what he was- a con man.

Very disappointing

[Ripshin · 15 October 2006]

As a lover of documentaries, I approached this film with much interest. However, upon its conclusion, I feel I know very little about the motives of the main character. In addition, the chronology of the events are presented in a confusing fashion, with photographs and video utilized out of sequence, and repetitively.

Why did this man feel the need to reinvent his life so many times? What affect did his childhood have on his behavior? This film does not provide the answers.

The narration is dull. The eventual interview with the subject, after many years, is a let-down. It was exciting to see that the filmmaker had tracked down the subject after exploring his complicated life, but the resulting personal interview is inconclusive. Granted, the filmmaker could not force answers - but perhaps he was not asking the right questions.

Not recommended.

What a shame...

[philip-00197 · 15 September 2022]

Much of Jesse Moss' documentary is spot on. There is lot of detective work, effort and good journalism put into the creation of Con Man.

Our protagonist, to some maybe antagonist, James Hogue has an extraordinary personality that is, doubtlessly, worthy of a well researched documentary. There are extensive interviews with many of the people whose pahths crossed the one of James Hogue.

However... hard work and great work don't necessarily coincide and, unfortunately, this is such an occasion. Despite the, apparent, effort put into research - Con Man totally misses the golden opportunity to deliver answers to most of the questions it is, or at least should be, asking. The feeling is that you got a great and complex product but they forgot to enclose the manual.

For starters the title, Con Man, is "off". Maybe if followed by a question mark - it would have been slightly indicative as to what this documentary sets out to cover. As it stands, if you are expecting your run of the mill conman... well James Hogue is definitely not that. Without properly addressing the issue, Moss certainly touches the question "Is Hogue a conman at all?" but he never elaborates further.

The main reason for Con Man being a missed opportunity lies in Moss's interviewing skills - or rather lack there of. Throughout the film it appears obvious that most the people being interviewed want to elaborate on their thoughts with regard to Houge. In these situations a fly-on-the-wall, or more correctly put - microphone on a table, approach doesn't deliver.

One who seems really keen to elaborate on his rationale, his reasoning and behaviour, is the main character; James Hogue. Moss makes a successful attempt, at creating suspense by not revealing if there ever is going to be an interview with Hogue. So expectations are high when, towards the end, one actually appears. This is the great opportunity to "get inside" and get a glimpse of the ongoings inside Hogue's mind. It is an opportunity that was, well and truly botched. Hogue, showing great willingness to philosophise about his actions, is left hanging - more or less snubbed off. And so... the crescendo never comes - not due to lack of opportunity, due entirely to poor interviewing technique.

The end sensation is; that would be a great topic for a documentary, rather than just having watched one - and that's a great shame.